coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants were born in 1942, 1953 and 1949 respectively and live in Kraljevo.
6.  On 10 November 2004 the Kraljevo District Court (“the District Court”) ordered “MAGNOHROM d.o.o.” (“the debtor”), a company from Kraljevo, to pay the applicants in solidum 1,504,924 Serbian dinars (“RSD”) together with statutory interest and legal costs. This judgment became final on 6 July 2006.
7.  On 2 February 2007 the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment proposing that it be carried out through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified immovable assets.
8.  On 6 February 2007 the Kraljevo Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) issued a writ of execution (rešenje o izvršenju). The debtor appealed against that decision arguing that it was going through the process of restructuring as well as that the value of the impugned immovable assets exceeded the value of the applicants’ claims. On 9 March 2007 the District Court dismissed the appeal.
9.  On an unspecified date 60 other enforcement claims submitted against the same debtor were joined to the applicants’ case.
10.  After several hearings and few unsuccessful public auctions, on 30 April 2010 the impugned assets were sold to a company from Bačka Palanka for RSD 151,663.077.
11.  The final decision on division of the proceeds and the order of settlement of creditors was issued by the Municipal Court on 5 July 2011. The court ordered the partial settlement of all creditors in proportion to their claims and the amount obtained through the sale.
12.  Shortly thereafter the applicants’ claims were partially settled.
13.  The debtor was privatised on 21 July 2006.
14.  The sales contract was annulled on 28 December 2007 due to a buyer’s failure to fulfil the contractual obligations.
15.  As of January 2008, the debtor still consisted of predominantly socially/State-owned capital.
16.  On 28 May 2010 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor, which is still ongoing. Nevertheless, the enforcement proceedings under consideration in the present case have never been suspended or terminated on these grounds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Zsujta.
5.  On 4 December 1996 a private individual brought an action against the applicant before the Encs District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of an agreement.
6.  Due to hospitalisation, the applicant did not appear at the hearings held between 21 July and 7 October 1997.
7.  On 7 June 2001 the applicant submitted a counter-claim against the plaintiff based on unjust enrichment.
8.  On 13 June 2006 the District Court gave judgment.
On appeal, the Borsod-Abaúj-County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision in part, that is, in respect of the original action brought against the applicant, and remitted the remainder of the claims concerning unjust enrichment to the District Court on 21 November 2006.
9.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court gave judgment on 10 December 2007.
On appeal, the second-instance court accepted some claims and remitted the remainder to the first-instance court on 3 June 2008.
10.  In the meanwhile, on 8 January 2010 the applicant brought a separate action in compensation under section 349 of the Civil Code against the courts acting in his case, claiming that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. The proceedings are currently pending before the Nyíregyháza High Court.
11.  As regards the proceedings concerning the applicant’s counter-claim, several hearings were held. Following another remittal by the Regional Court, the District Court finally accepted the applicant’s counter-claim on 28 April 2010.
On appeal, the Regional Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim on 18 November 2010.
This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19 May 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Taliándörögd.
5.  In October 1999 the Hungarian Railway Company received authorisation to lead wires through the applicant’s property. On 7 April 2000 the applicant received 1,858,536 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation from the Railway Company.
6.  Nevertheless, in October 2000 the applicant brought an action in damages against the Hungarian Railway Company before the Veszprém County Regional Court, claiming that the compensation given did not cover the loss in the value of his property. The court appointed three real estate experts. On 24 February 2003 the court gave judgment, finding in part for the applicant.
7.  This judgment was quashed on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 17 September 2003.
8.  In the resumed proceedings two new expert opinions were obtained. On 6 March 2007 the District Court gave judgment. It ordered the respondent to pay the applicant HUF 4,541,464, and dismissed the remainder of his claims. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Győr Court of Appeal on 19 March 2008.
9.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 2 October 2008. This decision was served on the applicant on 29 October 2008.
5.  In 1951 the State authorities took more than three hectares of land from a relative of the applicants. No compensation was paid to the owner.
6.  The applicants unsuccessfully claimed restitution of the land under Law no. 503/2003. In particular, in a judgment of 13 December 2006 the Supreme Court held, in a review of the decisions made at lower levels of jurisdiction, that the land had been formally transferred to the State pursuant to Ordinance 15/1959. Section 3 of Law no. 503/2003 did not include such a situation as grounds for restitution of property. The applicants could have claimed restitution of the land earlier, under Law no. 403/1990, but they had not done so.
7.  On 23 April 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and also of their constitutional right to own property.
8.  In particular, the applicants argued that the land had been expropriated without compensation. It was therefore liable to restitution under section 3(1)(m) and (n) of Law no. 503/2003, irrespective of the fact that that law contained no reference to Ordinance 15/1959. They referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment 3SžoKS 130/2005 of 9 June 2006, which found that a situation similar to that of the applicants fell under Law no. 503/2003.
9.  On 25 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint (decision III. ÚS 287/07). It held that the Supreme Court had given sufficient reasons for its judgment, which was neither arbitrary nor otherwise contrary to the constitutional principles. It was not for the Constitutional Court to review the way in which ordinary courts interpreted and applied the law unless it resulted in a breach of the Constitution.
10.  The decision was served on 18 December 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  His wife and daughter died in a traffic accident.
7.  On 8 March 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Istanbul Civil Court against the driver involved in the accident and the company holding the possession of the vehicle the driver had driven and requested compensation for damages he suffered.
8.  On an unspecified date the Istanbul Civil Court declined jurisdiction in respect of the claims brought against the company and referred that part of the case to the Civil Court in Kartal, where the company’s headquarters was located.
9.  On 4 April 2006 the Kartal Civil Court decided to wait for the finalisation of the criminal proceedings regarding the accident.
10.  On 6 May 2008, after the criminal proceedings were finalised, the defendant company requested the Kartal Civil Court to await the finalisation of the other case against the driver which was before the Istanbul Civil Court.
11.   The Kartal Civil Court granted this request. From that day onwards no action was taken on the civil case before the Kartal Civil Court.
12.  On 27 February 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Istanbul Civil Court against the driver.
13.  The civil proceedings against the defendant company are still pending before the Kartal Civil Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Batman.
5.  In October 2000 the applicant lodged a case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior for the annulment of an administrative decision refusing his request for compensation of disability.
6.  On 20 October 2000 the court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Ankara Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 10 March 2003.
7.  On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 10 March 2003.
8.  On 12 July 2006 the applicant’s request for rectification introduced on 25 March 2005 was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court.
9.  On 24 August 2006 the judgment was notified to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  On 31 July 2002 she lodged a criminal complaint against her husband accusing him of stealing from their common household. A civil claim was joined to the complaint.
6.  On 17 June 2003 the prosecution brought the case to court on charges of theft between spouses.
7.  On 16 February 2004 the Galaţi District Court convicted the defendant to two years and two months’ imprisonment and awarded the applicant 20,000 Romanian lei (RON) – around 4,500 euros (EUR) – as pecuniary damage.
8.  The judgment became final at first instance as no appeal had been filed against it.
9.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed on points of law outside the statutory time-limit alleging that the first-instance court had not observed the guarantees of a fair trial in his respect. He claimed that he had been convicted in absentia and that he had not benefited from legal representation.
10.  On 4 May 2005 the County Court of Galaţi allowed the appeal. It thus quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re-trial.
11.  On 26 October 2007 the defendant was convicted to one year’s imprisonment for breach of trust between spouses. The applicant was awarded RON 400 (around EUR 91) as pecuniary damage. Both the defendant and the applicant appealed on points of law.
12.  On 5 June 2008 the applicant withdrew her complaint as well as her appeal on points of law.
13.  On 12 September 2008 the Galaţi District Court granted the motion of withdrawal of charges and thus terminated the criminal proceedings. The judgment became final.
5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Novi Sad.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 13 April 1990 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Novi Sad Municipal Court, seeking damages and the restitution of certain personal effects from his former employer (“the respondent”).
8.  Following a remittal in 1995, in December 2000 the Municipal Court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Novi Sad District Court as the competent court of first instance in the matter.
9.  Following another remittal in 2002, the District Court, by judgment of 30 June 2006, ruled partly in the applicant’s favour.
10.  On 18 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Serbia, acting as a second-instance court, partly upheld and partly reversed the said judgment on appeal.
11.  On 27 April 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija).
12.  On 25 June 2007 the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of five judges, rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law, referring to Articles 361 § 2.9, 399 and 405 of the Civil Procedure Act 2004 (see paragraph 18 below).
13.  The decision of 25 June 2007 was served on the applicant on 10 September 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 24 August 2000 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the Eskişehir Administrative Court claiming that she had contracted (HEPATIT-C) from the surgical instruments used during her operation.
8.  On 6 November 2001 the Eskişehir Administrative Court found the applicant’s objection groundless and refused her request for compensation.
9.   On 21 December 2001 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 6 November 2001.
10.  On 30 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first instance court’s judgment.
11.  On 1 August 2004 the applicant requested rectification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision.
12.  On 17 August 2004 the Eskişehir Administrative Court issued an interim decision and noted that the fee for rectification had not been paid. The court asked the applicant to correct this procedural shortcoming within fifteen days.
13.  On 7 October 2004, upon her non-compliance with the interim decision of the court, the court decided not to put the applicant’s rectification request into action.
14.  On 1 November 2004 the applicant appealed.
15.  On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the administrative court’s decision not to take the applicant’s request for rectification into account finding that the request had been properly submitted. Yet, the Supreme Court dismissed the request upon an examination of merits holding that there was no plausible ground requiring rectification.
16.  On 28 August 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision of 11 May 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  On 1 September 1999 the Romanian Copyright Office (“ORDA”) suspended the applicant from work for gross misconduct, that is, suspicion of fraud, malfeasance in public office and document destruction. A criminal complaint was further filed by ORDA with the prosecution authorities on 14 September 1999.
6.  On an unspecified date in November 2000 the applicant complained about the protraction of the investigation. His complaint was admitted on 10 November 2000 by the Public Prosecutor’s Office as no procedural act had been carried out until that date. The prosecuting authorities were instructed to deal with the complaint within reasonable delays.
7.  On 21 February 2001 the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the Bucharest District Court no. 1 (“the Prosecutor”) decided to initiate the criminal prosecution against the applicant.
8.  By a subsequent decision of 31 January 2002 the Prosecutor rejected the initiation of prosecution in respect of the applicant as his conduct did not meet the statutory essential elements of the prosecuted offences. ORDA contested this decision before the Higher Ranking Prosecutor.
9.  On 6 March 2002 the contestation was allowed and the criminal prosecution was resumed.
10.  Subsequent to the examination of evidence (hearing of four witness testimonies and examination of few documents, without the commission of any expert study), the Prosecutor decided on 8 May 2002 to discontinue the investigation in respect of the applicant. The decision was challenged by ORDA before the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
11.  On 6 March 2003 the contestation was allowed and the impugned decision was quashed. The case was reopened for further investigation before the prosecuting authorities.
12.  On 23 July 2003 the Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against the applicant in respect of the charges of fraud and malfeasance in public office. At the same time, an administrative fine was imposed for charges of document destruction.
13.  The decision was upheld before the Higher Ranking Prosecutor and became final on 17 October 2003.
14.  Subsequent to the decisions to discontinue the criminal prosecution against him, the applicant requested to resume his work at ORDA. Following the latter’s refusal, the applicant brought two sets of labour litigations against his employer on 22 February 2002 and on an unspecified date in 2003 respectively.
15.  On 15 April 2003 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the first action. It ruled that the applicant could not resume work since the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation had not been final at that time. Later on the applicant was reinstated to a different position at ORDA. Shortly afterwards, the employment contract was voluntarily terminated.
16.  The second action was allowed by way of a final decision. On 6 July 2006 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest awarded the applicant the retroactive payment of wages he had been entitled to.
5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Ankara.
6.  He had a fight with his schoolmate and as a consequence lost an eye.
7.  The applicant’s parents lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s Office since he was a minor at the time of the incident.
8.  On 15 February 2000 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the student with whom the applicant fought with the Tenth Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court.
9.  On 23 June 2000 the applicant and his parents further lodged a civil case requesting reparation for damages with the Ankara Civil Court.
10.  On 5 November 2003 the applicant’s father joined the criminal proceedings as the intervening civil party (in his capacity as the applicant’s legal guardian).
11.  Between 5 November 2003 and 21 February 2008 two courts declined jurisdiction in the case on account of certain procedural rules. On 21 February 2008 the Ankara Juvenile Court decided to discontinue the proceedings by virtue of statute of limitations.
12.  On 28 January 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 February 2008.
13.  Meanwhile, in the civil proceedings, the Ankara Civil Court decided to wait for the outcome of the criminal case and no procedural step was taken up until the finalisation of the case before the criminal court.
14.  On 20 January 2010 the Ankara Civil Court rendered its judgment.
15.  On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Civil Court.
16.  The civil proceedings are currently pending before the Ankara Civil Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bor.
6.  On 26 October 2004 the applicant filed a civil claim against his employer, company Z, seeking the payment of outstanding holiday pay (regres za korišćenje godišnjeg odmora) due for 2002 and 2003, the difference between the salary he had received and the minimum salary payable under collective agreements in force at the company for the period from October 2001 to May 2004, statutory interest and legal costs.
7.  Following a remittal in 2005, on 15 March 2006 the Bor Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) ruled in favour of the applicant. As regards the outstanding holiday pay, the court observed that company Z had not paid the holiday pay due for 2002 and 2003 to any of its employees, as its alleged parent company had been encountering financial difficulties. The court, however, found these facts to be irrelevant to the outcome of the applicant’s claim, as according to the Labour Act and enterprise bargaining agreements in force at the company he had been entitled to holiday pay regardless of the level of his employer’s profits.
8.  On 3 September 2007 the Zaječar District Court (Okružni sud) reversed the part of the Municipal Court’s judgment which concerned holiday pay and legal costs, while upholding the remainder. The District Court based its refusal on the finding, disregarding applicable employment law, that company Z had not paid outstanding holiday pay to any of its employees and therefore that “to accept the applicant’s claim would mean that the applicant would be treated more favourably than his colleagues, who had not received payment of outstanding holiday pay from their employer either”. No further recourse against this judgment was available to the applicant.
9.  It would appear that between 2004 and 2009 a number of the applicant’s colleagues lodged the same or similar claims to those of the applicant with the Municipal Court.
10.  On 28 April and 2 June 2009 the Municipal Court rejected the claims of the applicant’s colleagues for the same reasons as the District Court had in the applicant’s case. However, the Belgrade Court of Appeal, which, following reforms to the judicial system had become the competent appeal court, overturned both judgments on 29 April and 30 June 2010, respectively. In so doing, the appeal court found that the claimants had been entitled to their outstanding holiday pay by applicable domestic law (see paragraphs 10-13 below), finding that the reasons for judgment given by the Municipal Court in their cases were irrelevant and that it had erred in law in rendering the judgments.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Spała.
6.  By a judgment of 14 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a second-instance administrative decision by which the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) had refused to declare the Łódź Governor’s decision of 13 November 2009 null and void.
7.  On 12 May 2010 the judgment of 14 April 2010, together with its written grounds, was served on the applicant.
8.  On 24 May 2010 the applicant filed a motion to be exempted from the payment of court fees and for the assistance of a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
9.  On 12 June 2010 the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal expired.
10.  On 13 July 2010 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the motion for exemption from court fees but granted the applicant the assistance of a legal-aid lawyer.
11.  On 9 November 2010 the registry of the court requested the Warsaw Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the applicant’s case.
12.  On 16 November 2010 the Bar Association assigned E.K.S to represent the applicant.
13.  On 1 December the applicant received a letter from E.K.S. informing him that she had been appointed as his legal representative.
14.  On 15 December the legal-aid lawyer, E.K.S., asked the applicant to pay the court fees for the cassation appeal and to return to her confirmation of the bank to transfer in order to attach it to the cassation appeal.
15.  By a letter of 17 December 2010, served on the applicant on 20 December 2010, the lawyer informed the applicant that she had found no legal grounds on which she could draft a cassation appeal.